Virtua Fighter 5 REVO · v1.10 · Character Matchup Winrates
Eileen vs El Blaze
Matches counted533
Win rate48.6%
Widest swing12.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23
Where it was fought
Eileen's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Stage effect | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | 60.9% | +12.3 | 0.081 | 46 · | |
| Fence and open | 59.3% | +10.7 | 0.255 | 27 · | |
| Breakable full fence | 57.6% | +9.0 | 0.119 | 66 · | |
| Full fence | 55.8% | +7.2 | 0.276 | 52 · | |
| Octagon | 53.5% | +4.9 | 0.503 | 43 · | |
| Single wall | 46.9% | -1.6 | 0.808 | 49 · | |
| Half fence | 45.5% | -3.1 | 0.623 | 55 · | |
| Low fence | 44.6% | -4.0 | 0.532 | 56 · | |
| Rectangle | 38.6% | -10.0 | 0.110 | 57 · | |
| Breakable half fence | 37.7% | -10.9 | 0.071 | 61 · |
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
Stage against stage
Eileen's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 13.33 on 9 df, p 0.148
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 55.8%52 | -1.80.844 | +10.30.286 | +18.10.055 | +11.10.248 | +8.80.375 | -3.50.766 | -5.10.609 | +17.20.073 | +2.30.824 |
| Breakable full fence | +1.80.844 | 57.6%66 | +12.10.184 | +19.90.025 | +12.90.154 | +10.60.258 | -1.70.881 | -3.30.727 | +19.00.036 | +4.10.674 |
| Half fence | -10.30.286 | -12.10.184 | 45.5%55 | +7.80.397 | +0.80.932 | -1.50.880 | -13.80.240 | -15.40.122 | +6.80.462 | -8.00.430 |
| Breakable half fence | -18.10.055 | -19.90.025 | -7.80.397 | 37.7%61 | -6.90.446 | -9.20.329 | -21.60.061 | -23.20.018 | -0.90.921 | -15.80.110 |
| Low fence | -11.10.248 | -12.90.154 | -0.80.932 | +6.90.446 | 44.6%56 | -2.30.814 | -14.60.212 | -16.20.103 | +6.00.514 | -8.80.383 |
| Single wall | -8.80.375 | -10.60.258 | +1.50.880 | +9.20.329 | +2.30.814 | 46.9%49 | -12.30.304 | -13.90.174 | +8.30.386 | -6.50.531 |
| Fence and open | +3.50.766 | +1.70.881 | +13.80.240 | +21.60.061 | +14.60.212 | +12.30.304 | 59.3%27 | -1.60.892 | +20.70.076 | +5.80.636 |
| Open | +5.10.609 | +3.30.727 | +15.40.122 | +23.20.018 | +16.20.103 | +13.90.174 | +1.60.892 | 60.9%46 | +22.30.025 | +7.40.482 |
| Rectangle | -17.20.073 | -19.00.036 | -6.80.462 | +0.90.921 | -6.00.514 | -8.30.386 | -20.70.076 | -22.30.025 | 38.6%57 | -14.90.138 |
| Octagon | -2.30.824 | -4.10.674 | +8.00.430 | +15.80.110 | +8.80.383 | +6.50.531 | -5.80.636 | -7.40.482 | +14.90.138 | 53.5%43 |
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison
How significance is decided
- Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
- The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
- q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
- Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
- Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
Matches counted379
Win rate52.2%
Widest swing14.4 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23
Where it was fought
Eileen's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Stage effect | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fence and open | 66.7% | +14.4 | 0.209 | 18 · | |
| Breakable full fence | 64.4% | +12.2 | 0.081 | 45 · | |
| Open | 62.5% | +10.3 | 0.225 | 32 · | |
| Full fence | 57.1% | +4.9 | 0.500 | 42 · | |
| Octagon | 53.6% | +1.3 | 0.884 | 28 · | |
| Single wall | 50.0% | -2.2 | 0.758 | 42 · | |
| Low fence | 48.8% | -3.5 | 0.638 | 41 · | |
| Half fence | 44.4% | -7.8 | 0.265 | 45 · | |
| Rectangle | 44.4% | -7.8 | 0.325 | 36 · | |
| Breakable half fence | 40.5% | -11.8 | 0.105 | 42 · |
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
Stage against stage
Eileen's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.55 on 9 df, p 0.308
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 57.1%42 | -7.30.486 | +12.70.236 | +16.70.127 | +8.40.445 | +7.10.512 | -9.50.490 | -5.40.642 | +12.70.263 | +3.60.768 |
| Breakable full fence | +7.30.486 | 64.4%45 | +20.00.057 | +24.00.025 | +15.70.143 | +14.40.173 | -2.20.867 | +1.90.861 | +20.00.072 | +10.90.356 |
| Half fence | -12.70.236 | -20.00.057 | 44.4%45 | +4.00.708 | -4.30.687 | -5.60.604 | -22.20.111 | -18.10.118 | +0.01.000 | -9.10.448 |
| Breakable half fence | -16.70.127 | -24.00.025 | -4.00.708 | 40.5%42 | -8.30.447 | -9.50.381 | -26.20.063 | -22.00.060 | -4.00.724 | -13.10.281 |
| Low fence | -8.40.445 | -15.70.143 | +4.30.687 | +8.30.447 | 48.8%41 | -1.20.912 | -17.90.204 | -13.70.243 | +4.30.704 | -4.80.696 |
| Single wall | -7.10.512 | -14.40.173 | +5.60.604 | +9.50.381 | +1.20.912 | 50.0%42 | -16.70.234 | -12.50.284 | +5.60.624 | -3.60.770 |
| Fence and open | +9.50.490 | +2.20.867 | +22.20.111 | +26.20.063 | +17.90.204 | +16.70.234 | 66.7%18 | +4.20.768 | +22.20.123 | +13.10.379 |
| Open | +5.40.642 | -1.90.861 | +18.10.118 | +22.00.060 | +13.70.243 | +12.50.284 | -4.20.768 | 62.5%32 | +18.10.137 | +8.90.484 |
| Rectangle | -12.70.263 | -20.00.072 | -0.01.000 | +4.00.724 | -4.30.704 | -5.60.624 | -22.20.123 | -18.10.137 | 44.4%36 | -9.10.469 |
| Octagon | -3.60.768 | -10.90.356 | +9.10.448 | +13.10.281 | +4.80.696 | +3.60.770 | -13.10.379 | -8.90.484 | +9.10.469 | 53.6%28 |
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison
How significance is decided
- Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
- The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
- q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
- Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
- Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
Matches counted154
Win rate39.6%
Widest swing17.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23
Where it was fought
Eileen's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere| Stage | Stage effect | Win % | Change | p | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | 57.1% | +17.5 | 0.160 | 14 · | |
| Octagon | 53.3% | +13.7 | 0.253 | 15 · | |
| Full fence | 50.0% | +10.4 | 0.487 | 10 · | |
| Half fence | 50.0% | +10.4 | 0.487 | 10 · | |
| Fence and open | 44.4% | +4.8 | 0.760 | 9 · | |
| Breakable full fence | 42.9% | +3.2 | 0.743 | 21 · | |
| Low fence | 33.3% | -6.3 | 0.601 | 15 · | |
| Breakable half fence | 31.6% | -8.0 | 0.445 | 19 · | |
| Rectangle | 28.6% | -11.0 | 0.266 | 21 · | |
| Single wall | 28.6% | -11.0 | 0.541 | 7 · |
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
Stage against stage
Eileen's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column'sAll ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.04 on 9 df, p 0.736
| Stage | Full | Break. full | Half | Break. half | Low | Wall | Mixed | Open | Rect | Oct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full fence | 50.0%10 | +7.10.709 | +0.01.000 | +18.40.331 | +16.70.405 | +21.40.377 | +5.60.809 | -7.10.729 | +21.40.244 | -3.30.870 |
| Breakable full fence | -7.10.709 | 42.9%21 | -7.10.709 | +11.30.462 | +9.50.563 | +14.30.503 | -1.60.936 | -14.30.407 | +14.30.334 | -10.50.535 |
| Half fence | -0.01.000 | +7.10.709 | 50.0%10 | +18.40.331 | +16.70.405 | +21.40.377 | +5.60.809 | -7.10.729 | +21.40.244 | -3.30.870 |
| Breakable half fence | -18.40.331 | -11.30.462 | -18.40.331 | 31.6%19 | -1.80.914 | +3.00.883 | -12.90.507 | -25.60.142 | +3.00.836 | -21.80.201 |
| Low fence | -16.70.405 | -9.50.563 | -16.70.405 | +1.80.914 | 33.3%15 | +4.80.823 | -11.10.586 | -23.80.198 | +4.80.760 | -20.00.269 |
| Single wall | -21.40.377 | -14.30.503 | -21.40.377 | -3.00.883 | -4.80.823 | 28.6%7 | -15.90.515 | -28.60.217 | +0.01.000 | -24.80.277 |
| Fence and open | -5.60.809 | +1.60.936 | -5.60.809 | +12.90.507 | +11.10.586 | +15.90.515 | 44.4%9 | -12.70.552 | +15.90.398 | -8.90.673 |
| Open | +7.10.729 | +14.30.407 | +7.10.729 | +25.60.142 | +23.80.198 | +28.60.217 | +12.70.552 | 57.1%14 | +28.60.091 | +3.80.837 |
| Rectangle | -21.40.244 | -14.30.334 | -21.40.244 | -3.00.836 | -4.80.760 | -0.01.000 | -15.90.398 | -28.60.091 | 28.6%21 | -24.80.133 |
| Octagon | +3.30.870 | +10.50.535 | +3.30.870 | +21.80.201 | +20.00.269 | +24.80.277 | +8.90.673 | -3.80.837 | +24.80.133 | 53.3%15 |
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison
How significance is decided
- Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
- The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
- q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
- Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
- Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.